How to improve efficiency in cancer care: Dimensions, methods, and areas of evaluation.

Efficiency in healthcare is crucial since available resources are scarce, and the cost of inefficient allocation is measured in prior outcomes. This is particularly relevant for cancer. The aim of this paper is to gain a comprehensive overview of the areas and dimensions to improve efficiency, and establish the indicators, different methods, perspectives, and areas of evaluation, to provide recommendations for how to improve efficiency and measure gains in cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a two-phase design. First, a comprehensive scoping literature review was conducted, searching four databases. Studies published between 2000 and 2021 were included if they described experiences and cases of efficiency in cancer care or methods to evaluate efficiency. The results of the literature review were then discussed during two rounds of online consultation with a panel of 15 external experts invited to provide insight and comments to deliberate policy recommendations. RESULTS: 46 papers met the inclusion criteria. Based on the papers retrieved we identified six areas for achieving efficiency gains throughout the entire care pathway and, for each area of efficiency, we categorized the methods and outcomes used to measure efficiency gain. CONCLUSION: This is the first attempt to systemize a scattered body of literature on how to improve efficiency in cancer care and identify key areas of improvement. POLICY SUMMARY: There are many opportunities to improve efficiency in cancer care. We defined seven policy recommendations on how to improve efficiency in cancer care throughout the care pathway and how to improve the measurement of efficiency gains.

A randomised controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography as primary screening tests: Screening results over subsequent episodes of the Proteus Donna study.

Proteus Donna is a randomised controlled trial aimed at prospectively evaluating screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), including interval cancer detection (ICD) and cancer detection (CD) in the analysis as a cumulative measure over subsequent screening episodes. Consenting women aged 46 to 68 attending the regional Breast Screening Service were randomly assigned to conventional digital mammography (DM, control arm) or DBT in addition to DM (DBT, study arm). At the subsequent round all participants underwent DM. Thirty-six months follow-up allowed for the identification of cancers detected in the subsequent screening and interscreening interval. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed. Cumulative CD and Nelson-Aalen incidence were analysed over the follow-up period. Between 31 December 2014 and 31 December 2017, 43 022 women were randomised to DM and 30 844 to DBT. At baseline, CD was significantly higher (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.21-1.71) in the study arm. ICD did not differ significantly between the two arms (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.62-1.35). At subsequent screening with DM, the CD was lower (nearly significant) in the study arm (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.06). Over the follow-up period, the cumulative CD (comprehensive of ICD) was slightly higher in the study arm (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.31). The Nelson-Aalen cumulative incidence over time remained significantly higher in the study arm for approximately 24 months. Benign lesions detection was higher in the study arm at baseline and lower at subsequent tests. Outcomes are consistent with a lead time gain of DBT compared to DM, with an increase in false positives and moderate overdiagnosis.

Piloting a generic cancer consumer quality index in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: Accounting for patients' perspective has become increasingly important. Based on the Consumer Quality Index method (founded on Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) a questionnaire was recently developed for Dutch cancer patients. As a next step, this study aimed to adapt and pilot this questionnaire for international comparison of cancer patients experience and satisfaction with care in six European countries. METHOD: The Consumer Quality Index was translated into the local language at the participating pilot sites using cross-translation. A minimum of 100 patients per site were surveyed through convenience sampling. Data from seven pilot sites in six countries was collected through an online and paper-based survey. Internal consistency was tested by calculating Cronbach's alpha and validity by means of cognitive interviews. Demographic factors were compared as possible influencing factors. RESULTS: A total of 698 patients from six European countries filled the questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha was good or satisfactory in 8 out of 10 categories. Patient satisfaction significantly differed between the countries. We observed no difference in patient satisfaction for age, gender, education, and tumor type, but satisfaction was significantly higher in patients with a higher level of activation. CONCLUSION: This European Cancer Consumer Quality Index(ECCQI) showed promising scores on internal consistency (reliability) and a good internal validity. The ECCQI is to our knowledge the first to measure and compare experiences and satisfaction of cancer patients on an international level, it may enable healthcare providers to improve the quality of cancer care.